It looks to me as if no amount of spinning can fix the credibility problem that Mann, Jones, Briffa and others in the warmer community lost when their e-mails got posted.

It is now clear that the public is stepping away from the AGW bandwagon and that the leadership of some scientific organizations are under a lot of pressure to clarify their positions on the issue to something beyond, 'the IPCC says that the evidence..." What I found fascinating was the response to the AMS survey in which half of TV weathermen disagreed with the statement, "Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.: That was twice the number who agreed.

There is a doomsday message that is swiftly gaining global acceptance. The new wave is clothed in acceptable clichés and has won over the support of many of the respected scientific communities.

Unlike most other doomsday messages, this one is supposedly based upon scientific evidence. The scientific “doomsdayers” wear masks and pretend that they are predicting calamities based on hard evidence. This lulls the unsuspecting public into absolute belief and acceptance of the doomsdayers’ ravings.

If the same message were given in a spiritual setting, the adherents would probably be encouraged to turn to God in preparation for the final days. Generally, scientists have sneered at and mocked spiritual predictions regarding the end times, and the same scientists have convinced the general public to do likewise. Further, governments of the world use their police powers to suppress, restrict, or even eliminate these spiritual-based groups. Scientists have now one-upped the spiritual believers by supporting their dire predictions of calamity with supposed scientific evidence. Using their scientific clout, they have now convinced most of the world leaders to meet in Copenhagen. The stated agenda of the gathering is to halt global warming with a unified and urgent approach.

People may remember that there have been similar gatherings to solve the global economic crisis. In those meetings, every leader attending was told to boost their economies by stimulus spending. By and large, the world leaders have dutifully followed those dictates. One might ask: Is the global recession over due to this unified approach – or is it deepening? Many thinking economists have finally realized the latter to be the case.

[...]

Were the carbon traders truly concerned that global warming is a seriously urgent issue, they could perhaps justify following their untested carbon-trading notion. But if it were an urgent situation, why would they offer a solution that will take decades to take effect? If they have decades to work on the solution, by definition, it cannot be that urgent. And, if they have decades to implement their plan, could they not spend at least a few years or even a few months openly and transparently debating which course of action will save the planet from its imminent death?

To demonstrate the absurdity of the current “green” position, consider that they are proposing massive increases in nuclear power because it is supposed to be carbon friendly. The nuclear proponents do not seem to care about the disposal of nuclear waste from these sites. This means that they are presenting an extremely short-sighted solution, which is not really a solution at all. Besides, the proponents of expanding nuclear power want to tremendously restrict who can and who cannot use nuclear power. For instance, Iran and North Korea are presently being ostracized for, among other things, having nuclear-power programmes. This is a glaring instance where part of the real agenda of the ruling elite shows through; the nuclear proponents are not as concerned about global warming as they are with political dominance.

As indicated earlier, humans are only marginally responsible for global warming. The hotter sun is undeniable, and it is the main reason for global warming.

[...]

This would be all well and good if it could be believed that scientists are acting in the people’s best interests. But, since when have scientists been assumed to be altruistic? Why is it accepted that they will only act in the best interests of humans? And why should it be accepted that the scientists are correct about human causes of global warming?

[...]

The carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the ruling elite’s scientific doomsdayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will change the lives of people for the worse.

VangelV, and anonymice - don't be silly, none of the emails suggest any sort of conspiracy.

Try reading them. The e-mails reveal the following problems for your side of the debate:

The code used to create the hockey stick makes it clear that the proxy data is cut off in 1960 to hide the decline.

Michael Mann is praised by Jones for the statistical trick that creates the hockey stick.

Phil Jones writes about destroying data in violation of the FOI Act rather than allowing it to be reviewed by independent outsiders.

Jones, Mann and others conspire to select favourable reviewers that know what to say without prompting. They try to get the publishers to fire editors that permit papers that question AGW to be published.

They conspire to keep refereed papers out of the IPCC report because they cannot figure out how to respond to their finding.

They admit that the methods do not produce robust conclusions and admit that the 1990 paper that allowed the IPCC to select a 0.05C per century warming bias due to the UHI effect was fraudulent. (Jones' latest paper on the UHI effect in China comes up with a figure that is around twenty times larger than the data he got from Wang when he wrote the 1990 paper.)

No matter how you try to spin it, it is clear that a small group of individuals, which was actually identified for Congress by the Wegman Commission's network analysis, has conspired to interfere with the peer review process at the journals; has interfered with the selection process at the IPCC; has conspired to destroy data to circumvent the FOI Act; has manipulated statistical methods and data to come up with predetermined conclusions.

Given the fact that the e-mails prove that there is no consensus what we need is an actual investigation before we continue to subsidize the carbon traders, utilities, wind turbine makers and other companies that helped write the various climate legislation that forced taxpayers and consumers to transfer more of their wealth and earnings to special interest groupus.